Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754958AbaFQDfW (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:35:22 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com ([209.85.217.178]:47037 "EHLO mail-lb0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754714AbaFQDfV (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:35:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1402975557.2797.8.camel@joe-AO725> References: <1401728316.5770.9.camel@joe-AO725> <1402961300-17985-1-git-send-email-anish@chelsio.com> <1402964898.11561.2.camel@joe-AO725> <539F8F62.4000805@chelsio.com> <1402970429.2797.3.camel@joe-AO725> <1402975557.2797.8.camel@joe-AO725> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:05:19 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on unnecessary void function return statements From: Sachin Kamat To: Joe Perches Cc: Anish Bhatt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 08:46 +0530, Sachin Kamat wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Joe Perches wrote: >> > On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 17:44 -0700, Anish Bhatt wrote: >> >> My code has multiple exit lables: >> >> void function(void) >> >> { >> >> ... >> >> >> >> if (err1) >> >> goto exit1; >> >> ... >> >> if (err2) >> >> goto exit2; >> >> >> >> ... >> >> return; /* Good return, no errors */ >> >> exit1: >> >> printk(err1); >> >> return; >> >> exit2: >> >> printk(err2); >> >> } >> >> >> >> The single tabbed return was required to prevent the good return & err1 >> >> messages cascading down. The extra exit label with a noop looks weird, >> >> but is passing checkpatch.pl --strict, so I will go with that, thanks. >> >> -Anish >> >> >> > >> > Hmm, those return uses seem reasonable >> > to me. >> > >> > Perhaps the test should warn only on >> > this specific 3 line sequence: >> > >> > [any line but a label] >> > return; >> > } >> > >> > Andrew? Anyone else? Opinions? >> >> It should warn only if the return is followed by a value like >> return 0; or return -EERROR_CODE; etc. and not just 'return;' > > No. The compiler gets to warn on those. > checkpatch isn't a compiler. Right. I misunderstood the context of the discussion. Sorry for the noise. -- Regards, Sachin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/